Is the 18 team playoff being voted on soon?

[GSU Eagle]

In the January NCAA convention will the expansion to 18 teams be voted on?

It would be hard to see how this could be implemented this year unless the playoffs are all to be moved back 1 week. I assume teams 15,16,17 and 18 would play for the final 2 spots in the 16 team playoffs.

[danefan]

In the January NCAA convention will the expansion to 18 teams be voted on?

It would be hard to see how this could be implemented this year unless the playoffs are all to be moved back 1 week. I assume teams 15,16,17 and 18 would play for the final 2 spots in the 16 team playoffs.

Last I heard it was more likely for '09 because of the logistics, but still possible for '08.

Not sure when it gets voted on though.

Also, in my understanding it looks like they'll have to seed all 18 teams doesn't it? How else could they do a play-in of the last four teams in?

[eaglesrthe1]

Last I heard it was more likely for '09 because of the logistics, but still possible for '08.

Not sure when it gets voted on though.

Also, in my understanding it looks like they'll have to seed all 18 teams doesn't it? How else could they do a play-in of the last four teams in?

I'm opposed to expanding the playoffs in general. However, if it brought back seeding the entire field to go to 18 teams, then I would be all for it.

[GSU Eagle]

I would love to see the entire tournament get seeded, but I don't think the NCAA will go for that.

Probably the best we can hope for is to seed 1-8. I could live with that being done.

I still don't know how the logistics will work for expanding the playoffs. Either you have to start the season 1 week earlier, start the playoffs 1 week later or get rid of the bye week during the season.

[Poly Pigskin]

Last I heard it was more likely for '09 because of the logistics, but still possible for '08.

Not sure when it gets voted on though.

Also, in my understanding it looks like they'll have to seed all 18 teams doesn't it? How else could they do a play-in of the last four teams in?

Seeding all 18 would be the logical thing to do, which means it won't happen. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they seeded the top 4 and bottom 4, then waited for the results of the first 2 games to announce the rest of the matchups. The NCAA really seems to be in love with regionalization, and I don't see it going away too quickly.

[eaglesrthe1]

I would love to see the entire tournament get seeded, but I don't think the NCAA will go for that.

Probably the best we can hope for is to seed 1-8. I could live with that being done.

I still don't know how the logistics will work for expanding the playoffs. Either you have to start the season 1 week earlier, start the playoffs 1 week later or get rid of the bye week during the season.


Well, like Danefan said, you would have to seed all 18 in order to decide would would have the play-in.

[carney2]

The NCAA really seems to be in love with regionalization.

What the NCAA loves is money. The key reason that they will never seed the entire field is so that they have the freedom to move games - particularly first round games - to larger stadiums at schools with a large and loyal fan base. Of course, reducing travel costs (again, think first round) is no small consideration either.

[MR. CHICKEN]

What the NCAA loves is money. The key reason that they will never seed the entire field is so that they have the freedom to move games - particularly first round games - to larger stadiums at schools with a large and loyal fan base. Of course, reducing travel costs (again, think first round) is no small consideration either.

DON'T YA'LL MANAGE YER HOUSEHOLD........HEATIN' BILL/ELECTRIC?.....RUN YER LIVES ON UH BUDGET?.........WHAA WOOD YA NOT EXPECT.....DUH NCAA.....TA DO DUH SAME?.........BRAWK!

MERRY X-MAS!

[Eyes of Old Main]

What the NCAA loves is money. The key reason that they will never seed the entire field is so that they have the freedom to move games - particularly first round games - to larger stadiums at schools with a large and loyal fan base. Of course, reducing travel costs (again, think first round) is no small consideration either.

Very true. Far be it from the NCAA to seed teams based on strength when they can be matched up for politcal gain, storylines, or whatever arbitrary BS.

[eaglesrthe1]

Very true. Far be it from the NCAA to seed teams based on strength when they can be matched up for politcal gain, storylines, or whatever arbitrary BS.

Well, it's all a trade off. The extra money goes towards coverage. I know that I have enjoyed the extra coverage of the past couple of years.

I just hate that it comes at the expense of fairness to the teams that have earned home field advantage on the field.

[Eyes of Old Main]

Well, it's all a trade off. The extra money goes towards coverage. I know that I have enjoyed the extra coverage of the past couple of years.

I just hate that it comes at the expense of fairness to the teams that have earned home field advantage on the field.

I agree about the increased coverage, I just wish they could get our name right. xrolleyesx

[eaglesrthe1]

[/B]

DON'T YA'LL MANAGE YER HOUSEHOLD........HEATIN' BILL/ELECTRIC?.....RUN YER LIVES ON UH BUDGET?.........WHAA WOOD YA NOT EXPECT.....DUH NCAA.....TA DO DUH SAME?.........BRAWK!

MERRY X-MAS!

Even with the same budgets, some families may allocate more $$ for entertainment and eat more chicken. Some families may allocate more $$ for food and eat more steak.

It's not about the budget, but the priorities. Simply put, the tournament is about rewarding the efforts of the players that have earned it on the field. The players that deserve the best chance to advance are the players that have performed the best. The way to reward that performance is by home field advantage, to allow them to perform in front of their fans, not someone else's.

Even if I don't get to see some quarter final game from across the country.

[BDKJMU]

Last I heard it was more likely for '09 because of the logistics, but still possible for '08.

Not sure when it gets voted on though.

Also, in my understanding it looks like they'll have to seed all 18 teams doesn't it? How else could they do a play-in of the last four teams in?

Simple. Seed teams #1-#4 like now, and #15-#18. 10 teams unseeded. 14 teams get bye 1st round. 1st round #15 hosts #18. #16 hosts #17. 2nd round #1 hosts winner of #16/#17 and #2 hosts winner of #15/#18. Other 12 teams, #3 and #4 and 10 unseeded are paired up same as now.

[BDKJMU]

By 09' I imagine the Big South, with Stony Brooke being added, thereby fullfilling the minimum requirement of 6 teams (any other team being looked at for the Big South), will be asking for an AQ, which would mean a 10th AQ and playoffs would have to go to 20 teams, maybe by 2010' or 2011'.

[danefan]

Big South won't be eligible until 2010 season but I would imagine they would have to expand to 20 by then.

[Eyes of Old Main]

If you have to go to 20, wouldn't it make sense to go to 24 and give byes to the top 8?

[AlphaSigMD]

If UMass's AD is in charge of an 18-team playoff selection committee, does CAA get 6 teams in?

Or 7? xsmiley_wix

[FCS Preview]

If UMass's AD is in charge of an 18-team playoff selection committee, does CAA get 6 teams in?

Or 7? xsmiley_wix

Yes...Hofstra and Villanova -- two teams with 7 D-I wins, would get berths :D

[eaglesrthe1]

Yes...Hofstra and Villanova -- two teams with 7 D-I wins, would get berths :D

That would be more likely than the PFL picking up a bid.

[GSU Eagle]

Since some teams have their schedules planned several years out I guess the schedule problem would be solved by just having the championship game 1 week later and still starting the playoffs the weekend after Thanksgiving. That way you don't have teams trying to change games already scheduled.

[GrizDen]

I know this topic has been discussed a couple of times since the expansion to 18 teams was first brought up.

The main reason I'm against the expansion is that If your team can't make the top 16, why should I care that you're one of the bottom 2-4 teams in the tourney. Handle your business.

The main reason I'm for the expansion is that it would give the majority of teams a bye week at the end of the season to enjoy Turkey Day with family if they so desire.

I'd like the NCAA to decrease this regionalization crap and seed at least the top 8 teams.

I'll be curious to see how it all goes down in '08 and or '09.xpeacex

[Eaglegus2]

I would expect the NCAA would seed 1 - 4. Those Teams would have byes the first week of playoffs while the rest play.

Look at how D-II schedules their playoff games. It is something similar to this.

[ERASU2113]

However it plays out...it will be interesting to watch. As long as regionalization is removed, then I'll be happy.

[mvemjsunpx]

I would expect the NCAA would seed 1 - 4. Those Teams would have byes the first week of playoffs while the rest play.

Look at how D-II schedules their playoff games. It is something similar to this.


That wouldn't work. It would leave 11 teams remaining for the second round.

D-II has 24 teams in the playoffs. They seed 6 teams in 4 "regions" & the top-2 in each region get first-round byes. It's not a floating bracket like the NFL, though (so the 6-seed plays the 2-seed in the second round if they win).

[GSU Eagle]

As I understand it the NCAA has only approved going to 18 teams. So that would have to mean the bottom 4 teams (15-18) playing on weekend #1 of the playoffs to join the 14 teams with byes.

I am with the Montana fan in supporting this because it would get games off the weekend after Thanksgiving for most of the playoff teams.

Basically each of the last few years there has been 1-2 teams who had a legit argument to making the playoffs who did not. If you add 2 teams to the playoffs you take care of that pretty much.

[danefan]

As I understand it the NCAA has only approved going to 18 teams. So that would have to mean the bottom 4 teams (15-18) playing on weekend #1 of the playoffs to join the 14 teams with byes.

I am with the Montana fan in supporting this because it would get games off the weekend after Thanksgiving for most of the playoff teams.

Basically each of the last few years there has been 1-2 teams who had a legit argument to making the playoffs who did not. If you add 2 teams to the playoffs you take care of that pretty much.

Its actually not fully approved yet, but rather only approved by the Champsionship Committee I think. It still needs to get approved by the NCAA itself as far as I know.

[D1scout]

Since some teams have their schedules planned several years out I guess the schedule problem would be solved by just having the championship game 1 week later and still starting the playoffs the weekend after Thanksgiving. That way you don't have teams trying to change games already scheduled.

There you go again. Someone stating something that makes sense. I hope the NCAA doen't read this post because they will surely do the opposite!xlolx

[D1scout]

I know this topic has been discussed a couple of times since the expansion to 18 teams was first brought up.

The main reason I'm against the expansion is that If your team can't make the top 16, why should I care that you're one of the bottom 2-4 teams in the tourney. Handle your business.

The main reason I'm for the expansion is that it would give the majority of teams a bye week at the end of the season to enjoy Turkey Day with family if they so desire.

I'd like the NCAA to decrease this regionalization crap and seed at least the top 8 teams.

I'll be curious to see how it all goes down in '08 and or '09.xpeacex

I disagree because of Villanova and Dayton and others that should have at least an opportunity to particiapte. Their are others, like them, that are left out of the "Big Clash" yearly due to the limited number of berths available. Hey, the more the merrier!:)

[henfan]

Very true. Far be it from the NCAA to seed teams based on strength when they can be matched up for politcal gain, storylines, or whatever arbitrary BS.

As opposed to an arbitrary element like seeding based on something called 'strength'?! Come on. The act of seeding teams is a completely arbitrary process and adds nothing to the quality of the tournament. That type of action also wouldn't do one thing to ensure the playoff's financial success, particularly on Thanksgiving weekend.

IMO, the NCAA should be less concerned with ridiculous peripheral ideas like seeding more teams and focus more on getting the right 16 or 18 teams into the tournament. We need more transparency in the selection process, particularly in the weeks leading up to Selection Sunday.

[Eight Legger]

Seeding the top 8 teams is something that absolutely needs to be done. Guarantee them each at least one home game and you'll be on the right track.

What we have currently is a couple teams who play in bad leagues racking up undefeated seasons and getting seeded. This is almost always going to be the case. Conversely, there are great teams in the SoCon and CAA, and to a lesser degree Gateway, who are going to lose a few league games no matter how good they are. How can those teams get seeded? Let's just look at this year as an example. In retrospect, how in the hell does App State not get a seed? How does no one from the CAA get a seed?

A tournament is not worth playing if you're going to force the better teams to go on the road early on to beat lesser quality teams who happen to play weak schedules -- all in the name of money. Wofford was a better team than Montana this year and proved it by going out there and winning. But the game should have been at Wofford. Yes the better team won, but the burden should have been on Montana to prove it was worthy of playing Wofford by going on the road.

Seeding eight teams is still not ideal, but at least it's better than what we have now.

[FCS Preview]

I was surprised UMass didn't get a seed; I didn't think the committee would give two teams from the same conference Top 4 seeds.

[WrenFGun]

As it were, one think that hasn't been mentioned is the potential home games for the #15 and #16 seed. Traditionally, those teams would be traveling to powerhouses (though this year, the apparent #15 and #16, EWU and UNH, won and almost won, respectively) and wouldn't have the opportunity to host a home game. Now teams like EIU, EKU, UNH even, have an opportunity to host a home game if they get in these spots, which is really an interested added bonus. It'd be pretty tough for any of the four teams playing an extra game to have a shot at a championship berth, but we'll see.

[GannonFan]

As opposed to an arbitrary element like seeding based on something called 'strength'?! Come on. The act of seeding teams is a completely arbitrary process and adds nothing to the quality of the tournament. That type of action also wouldn't do one thing to ensure the playoff's financial success, particularly on Thanksgiving weekend.

IMO, the NCAA should be less concerned with ridiculous peripheral ideas like seeding more teams and focus more on getting the right 16 or 18 teams into the tournament. We need more transparency in the selection process, particularly in the weeks leading up to Selection Sunday.

Agreed. People here either weren't following things in the late 80's/early 90's or just weren't there - the seeding of the whole 16 team field was a joke back when they did it. Don't think that just doing seeding will erase any issues with who plays whom in the first rounds - it was bad then and it would be bad again.

[Col Hogan]

I was surprised UMass didn't get a seed; I didn't think the committee would give two teams from the same conference Top 4 seeds.

I think our loss to URI doomed any chance of getting a seed...

[FCS Preview]

I think our loss to URI doomed any chance of getting a seed...

They were still 5th in the GPI...

[WrenFGun]

Well, App. St lost to only Wofford (playoff team) and GSU (just missed), so they may have been just as deserving of a seed, if not moreso, than UMass.

[FCS Preview]

Well, App. St lost to only Wofford (playoff team) and GSU (just missed), so they may have been just as deserving of a seed, if not moreso, than UMass.
True, though they got their 3 home games w/o a seed, the way things worked out. :)

[unicat87]

If UMass's AD is in charge of an 18-team playoff selection committee, does CAA get 6 teams in?

Or 7? xsmiley_wix

At least! ;) -GT2005

[GannonFan]

I was surprised UMass didn't get a seed; I didn't think the committee would give two teams from the same conference Top 4 seeds.


I think our loss to URI doomed any chance of getting a seed...


They were still 5th in the GPI...

Well, the GPI's never been known to tout its ability to pick seeds, although I'm sure we'll get to that eventually!!! xrolleyesx

UMass, like the other poster said, when they lost to URI pretty much lost their chance at a seed. Besides the 3 unbeatens, SIU with their 10-1 record was pretty well set for the 4th seed. And even amongst teams with 2 losses, UMass wouldn't have been the first one to get a seed - Appy St would've gotten the seed over them, and even Richmond probably would've gotten a seed over UMass as well. UMass, through no fault of their own, could've been viewed as having too easy of a conference schedule with how things turned out - missing the top 3 in the South could've kept them from a seed.

[Saint3333]

I know it will never happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing the seeds 1-16 set utlizing an average of the two or three polls and the GPI for the teams selected by the committee.

[GannonFan]

I know it will never happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing the seeds 1-16 set utlizing an average of the two or three polls and the GPI for the teams selected by the committee.

The GPI is already simply a muddled average of the polls anyway - why keep compounding it by averaging it again? And truth be told, the seeds were never significantly different than the public rankings anyway - sure, there were some differences, but they weren't that great - a few spots different either way. But it was always amazing how certain teams always seemed to be on the positive side of those differences.

The other thing to keep in mind, for many teams, hosting in the playoffs could very well be a financially losing endeavor. In the long run, losing more money on football is not a great idea.

[Saint3333]

Sure some team is going to get screwed by a couple of spots, but what needs to stop happening is a team like JMU having to travel to the #4 team when they were ranked #5 (2006).

[GannonFan]

Sure some team is going to get screwed by a couple of spots, but what needs to stop happening is a team like JMU having to travel to the #4 team when they were ranked #5 (2006).

But that kind of thing happened even under the 16 team seedings - a team could easily find themselves dropped several spots (4-5 slots wouldn't be shocking) and all of a sudden a team that you would've thought would've been hosting all of a sudden wouldn't. All I'm saying is that a full seeded playoff, or even an 8 team seeded playoff, won't be the panacea that some think it would be to avoid odd first round matchups. And it's not even just regionalization that causes these things - SIU had to travel to UD in 2003 when both were highly ranked and that had nothing to do with proximity.

[walliver]

I suspect the NCAA will seed the top four teams and the bottom four (play-in) teams. I believe, however, that all 18 teams would need to be ranked in some form of publically available ranking.

I would hate to see a deserving team (with lower attendance possibly) triaged to a play-in game to reduce travel expenses. Or, if the NCAA really wants money, they could assign Montana and App State to play-in games to maximize revenue. There isn't always much of a pattern to what the committee does now, but, with an 18 team field, I think every team deserves a good explanation of how teams are picked for the play-in games.


My great fear is that when PC becomes eligible, and wins the Big South, Wofford will be assigned to play them in a play-in game to minimize travel expenses.xnodx

[santosballnewhampshire]

Sure some team is going to get screwed by a couple of spots, but what needs to stop happening is a team like JMU having to travel to the #4 team when they were ranked #5 (2006).

Same thing happened to UNH in 2004 when we went to Georgia Southern, but thats only because of our poor facilities.

[bluehenbillk]

I know it will never happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing the seeds 1-16 set utlizing an average of the two or three polls and the GPI for the teams selected by the committee.

Giving that 3-letter system exactly what it's creators originally intended it to do. Let the Roy Kramer's of the world just ruin 1-A football & keep their noses out of this level.

[Saint3333]

But that kind of thing happened even under the 16 team seedings - a team could easily find themselves dropped several spots (4-5 slots wouldn't be shocking) and all of a sudden a team that you would've thought would've been hosting all of a sudden wouldn't. All I'm saying is that a full seeded playoff, or even an 8 team seeded playoff, won't be the panacea that some think it would be to avoid odd first round matchups. And it's not even just regionalization that causes these things - SIU had to travel to UD in 2003 when both were highly ranked and that had nothing to do with proximity.

That's why I suggesting utilizing the poll rankings to ensure that doesn't happen.

[eaglesrthe1]

It doesn't suprise me in the least that UD fans are for regionalization. Imagine that.xrolleyesx

[uni88]

It doesn't suprise me in the least that UD fans are for regionalization. Imagine that.xrolleyesx

Emotionally I'm for seeding but rationally I agree with the UD fans. While seeding all of the teams would be as close to "fair" as the playoffs could get I also understand that seeding can be subjective and would likely not be perfect.

I also believe that seeding all the teams is not realistic at this point in time. Cost management appears to be a very important factor to the NCAA and regionalization and awarding home games to high bidders are two very simple ways to help keep costs down and revenues up. Money makes the world go around and as long as the NCAA is using any savings to promote FCS, I'm ok with it.

Granted, there are probably only a handful of teams that can outbid UNI (UD being one of them) so they aren't going to get the short end of the stick quite as often as some other teams.

[WMTribe90]

Saying that seeding all 16 isn't perfect is not justification for continuing the current failed regionalization scheme. Seeding the top 8 will not be perfect, but would be better than what we have now. Only seeding the top 8 will also allow for limited regionalization when the committee makes the pairings. Most importantly, seeding the top 8 means deserving teams are MORE likely to host home games and makes it LESS likely teams ranked in the top 8 will be forced to play each other in the first round.

[AppMan]

I am hearing the expansion plan has hit a major roadblock with ESPN refusing to move the championship game back a week. That would put the championship game into the bowl weekend schedule and they make too much money from those games to do that. The only alternative would be to start the season a week early like D-II and I don't know of anyone who wants to do that.

[GannonFan]

It doesn't suprise me in the least that UD fans are for regionalization. Imagine that.xrolleyesx

Of course we are - we're one of the many who got screwed during the Marshall Invitational years when everything was honky dorry and seeding solved everything. xrolleyesx It's amazing how people just seem to forget the chicanery that went on just 15 some years ago.

And as for Delaware and regionalization, you know, we did have to play a top 4 team in the first round in 2003 that wasn't anywhere near us geographically. Yes, this year we got DSU, but we've also been burned by regionalization as well (well, burned in having the matchup, not the outcome of the game).

[D1scout]

Emotionally I'm for seeding but rationally I agree with the UD fans. While seeding all of the teams would be as close to "fair" as the playoffs could get I also understand that seeding can be subjective and would likely not be perfect.

I also believe that seeding all the teams is not realistic at this point in time. Cost management appears to be a very important factor to the NCAA and regionalization and awarding home games to high bidders are two very simple ways to help keep costs down and revenues up. Money makes the world go around and as long as the NCAA is using any savings to promote FCS, I'm ok with it.

Granted, there are probably only a handful of teams that can outbid UNI (UD being one of them) so they aren't going to get the short end of the stick quite as often as some other teams.

"Money makes the world go around"! Isn't this like the "rich get richer"? I think the team with the best ranking at the time of selection for playoff should get the home field advantage ane revenue that goes with it. Most facilities are adequate if not the best deal financially for the NCAA. In this way, the programs that produce the best football team for that year will be rewarded financially so they can upgrade their facilities or programs.:)

[D1scout]

Saying that seeding all 16 isn't perfect is not justification for continuing the current failed regionalization scheme. Seeding the top 8 will not be perfect, but would be better than what we have now. Only seeding the top 8 will also allow for limited regionalization when the committee makes the pairings. Most importantly, seeding the top 8 means deserving teams are MORE likely to host home games and makes it LESS likely teams ranked in the top 8 will be forced to play each other in the first round.

Good points!

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

I am hearing the expansion plan has hit a major roadblock with ESPN refusing to move the championship game back a week. That would put the championship game into the bowl weekend schedule and they make too much money from those games to do that. The only alternative would be to start the season a week early like D-II and I don't know of anyone who wants to do that.

What am I missing? The bowl games on before Christmas aren't exactly the biggest, most popular bowl games. xconfusedx xconfusedx And are there multiple games on one night? xconfusedx xconfusedx And are any broadcast on the Saturday afternoon/early evening of the weekend following the current championship weekend? xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx

JMHO, but this is not an insurmountable obstacle unless one party is being an uncompromising piece of work! It isn't like ESPN shows wall to wall bowl games every day during "Bowl Season". Oh yeah, they'd have to forego one of their pool, poker or dog show broadcasts! Or worse yet, give up time for their talking heads to babble about the mythical national championship game. xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx

[FCS Preview]

What am I missing? The bowl games on before Christmas aren't exactly the biggest, most popular bowl games. xconfusedx xconfusedx And are there multiple games on one night? xconfusedx xconfusedx And are any broadcast on the Saturday afternoon/early evening of the weekend following the current championship weekend? xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx

JMHO, but this is not an insurmountable obstacle unless one party is being an uncompromising piece of work! It isn't like ESPN shows wall to wall bowl games every day during "Bowl Season". Oh yeah, they'd have to forego one of their pool, poker or dog show broadcasts! Or worse yet, give up time for their talking heads to babble about the mythical national championship game. xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx

Exactly...most games have been at night. They can easily have the FCS Championship at noon, bowl game at night.

[bench]

I am hearing the expansion plan has hit a major roadblock with ESPN refusing to move the championship game back a week. That would put the championship game into the bowl weekend schedule and they make too much money from those games to do that. The only alternative would be to start the season a week early like D-II and I don't know of anyone who wants to do that.

That's interesting if it's true. Source?

[KJ Eagle]

Sure some team is going to get screwed by a couple of spots, but what needs to stop happening is a team like JMU having to travel to the #4 team when they were ranked #5 (2006).

I think we had the same issue in '05 when we went to TxSt. xnonono2x

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

I think we had the same issue in '05 when we went to TxSt. xnonono2x

And '04 when the #5 team was sent to Statesboro. ;)

[Saint3333]

Exactly...most games have been at night. They can easily have the FCS Championship at noon, bowl game at night.

The FCS championship game at noon on a Friday would look awful. With a team like ASU, GSU, Montana, etc. in the game there may be 15K people there, without out them maybe 10K.

The FCS championship game doesn't want to compete with ANY bowl game for viewership either because we all know ESPN will choose to promote the FBS games.

16 teams is enough to crown a true champion, this isn't little league or the FBS bowl system.

[FCS Preview]

The FCS championship game at noon on a Friday would look awful. With a team like ASU, GSU, Montana, etc. in the game there may be 15K people there, without out them maybe 10K.

The FCS championship game doesn't want to compete with ANY bowl game for viewership either because we all know ESPN will choose to promote the FBS games.

16 teams is enough to crown a true champion, this isn't little league or the FBS bowl system.

I meant noon on a Saturday.There was the Papajohns.com bowl at 1pm on Saturday the 22nd, but it was on ESPN2. The first ESPN game was at 4:30PM

http://www.docsports.com/bowl-game-schedule.html

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

The FCS championship game at noon on a Friday would look awful. With a team like ASU, GSU, Montana, etc. in the game there may be 15K people there, without out them maybe 10K.

The FCS championship game doesn't want to compete with ANY bowl game for viewership either because we all know ESPN will choose to promote the FBS games.

16 teams is enough to crown a true champion, this isn't little league or the FBS bowl system.

I believe he was referring to Noon on Saturday giving ESPN plenty of time to also broadcast their sacred minor bowl game later that day.

True 16 teams is enough, but with new conferences wanting to be included the NCAA will increase the field. It is the path of least resistance and the NCAA has proven they prefer that path. They aren't going to take AQ's away from a conference, they aren't going to administer a ranking system to determine which eight conferences get the AQ's, they aren't going to eliminate AQ's, etc.